From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Subject: RE: The Ugly Test
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 14:08:58 +0100
[...]
> >> the range of p is one of 1,2,3,4
> >> the range of p is one of 3,4,5,6
> >> the range of p is one of 2,4,6,8
> >> i is in a restriction on property p
> >> with mincardinality of 2
> >
> >This is inconsistent and thus it entails
> >
> >> i p 3
> >> i p 4
> >
> >(but it is less interesting this time round!).
>
> [T]hat's a nice reasoning. [H]mm...
> [S]o you would make it impossible to further make
> the range of a property sharper[.] ([D]oing so would
> make the kb inconsistent[.])
Huh? it is certainly *possible* to make the KB inconsistent, so it is
certainly possible to further restrict the range of a property in this
case.
> I believe that this is not following from AS&S[.]
> [A]t least I can't conclude it from such piece as
> if E is rdfs:range
> then for x element of IOP, y element of IOC U IDC
> <x,y> element of EXTi(Si(E)) iff
> <w,z> element of EXTi(x) -> z element of CEXTi(y)
> which we interpret as
> {?x rdfs:range ?y. ?w ?x ?z} => {?z rdf:type ?y}.
> {?z rdfs:subClassOf ?y. ?x rdfs:range ?z} => {?x rdfs:range ?y}.
Your system may not be able to make the inference, but it certainly does
follow from the semantics.
> [S]o I still think that we can't call the proposed testcase
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/Manifest004#test a
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology#PositiveEntailmentTest
Why not?
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
peter